User:KenzeeF/Hamus (archaea)/Nadirkhan124 Peer Review

Lead: The lead was well written as it talked about archaea in terms of actually understanding what they are. I do think there could be more description though just on basic archaea before adding any recent discoveries and new findings.

Content: Content is good as it relative to the topic and is up to date. Thoroughly begins to talk about archaea. Could have talked about the three domain hypothesis and eukaryotic hypothesis for more background history.

Tone and Balance: Information was very neutral and there was no viewpoints that were presented.

Sources and References: Sources were good and all worked. Content was reflected pretty accurately. Sources are all from 2000's, a newer source could help as well to see if there has been any recent change as well.

Organization: Some run-on sentences, and punctuational mistakes.

Overall: Good article that makes reader understand the topic. More little details could help reader understand even more of what the topic is about.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

KenzeeF, MaskedSparrow, LMweberMICR, MichaelYoung72


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KenzeeF/Hamus_%28archaea%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KenzeeF/Hamus_%28archaea%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead was well written as it talked about archaea in terms of actually understanding what they are. I do think there could be more description though just on basic archaea before adding any recent discoveries and new findings.

Content: Content is good as it relative to the topic and is up to date. Thoroughly begins to talk about archaea. Could have talked about the three domain hypothesis and eukaryotic hypothesis for more background history.

Tone and Balance: Information was very neutral and there was no viewpoints that were presented.

Sources and References: Sources were good and all worked. Content was reflected pretty accurately. Sources are all from 2000's, a newer source could help as well to see if there has been any recent change as well.

Organization: Some run-on sentences, and punctuational mistakes.

Overall= Good article that makes reader understand the topic. More little details could help reader understand even more of what the topic is about.